Thanks Roussette - can anybody answer the question I posed towards the end of the last thread, namely why do the defence want two psychologists on the evaluation panel in addition to the three psychiatrists that are needed? Do they mean one to act for defence and one to act for prosecution or both acting for defence? Why would they think the addition would be advantageous?

Just putting myself onto this thread although I haven't anything to really say.Can't comment on the whys of the assessment or the make up of the panel further then I have already really, as M'Lady would say, a fruitless argument

I do now have my 'I luff Mr Nel' badge as my twitter pic for all of my 10 followers (I keep my twitter totally separate from real people I know). The trial is not something that anyone in my real life seems to be following so have refrained from mentioning it (apart from dh who is sick of my chattering away at him as I process information and firm my opinion!).

They had someone on Sky last night explaining what the psych analysis involves - basically the panel of psychiatrists and psychologists will ask OP the same questions (re the events and perhaps other things) day after day after day and analyze his response!

Yes, it was a forensic psychologist on Sky last week who said it was a very repetitive process involving interviews with the panel as a whole & with individual psychs covering developmental history & the events of the night of the alleged offence used. A report is compiled showing points where the panel agree & on points where there is disagreement, a dissenting report is made. M'lady can use discretion re the points of dissent or order further enquiry/reports I think.

That sounds like a really gruelling process but it would give me confidence that they'll reach a valid conclusion. Although, considering how divisive everything else has been, maybe the panel will be split on everything too!

I wonder if it's something like when you do one of those quizzes... you know the ones, like the myer briggs one or anything on emotional intelligence. You are actually asked questions, then later on you are double checked on your answers by questions couched in a different way which actually works out if what you are saying is really you, or whether what you are saying is a facade - sort of psychometric tests. If OP is asked that sort of thing relentlessly, won't it mean we will get to the truth at some point?

Very very few people can fool phycological testing and assessment and for the few that can be more unclear and borderline that's why there are at least three different profetionals in the panel. I have ever confidence that any mental illness or condition that OP may or may not have will be fully looked into and a comprehensive report will be submitted to the court to that the court can use that information to help understand what happened that fateful night and to what extent OP is responsible under criminal law.

Do people think the full report should be read into court and available to how public or do people think that only the salient parts/bullet points should be read onto the record or do people think that the report should be confidential to the court so that while the state, defence, judge and assessors will have full access to the report it would not be available in full or in part to the public?

I am not sure, a huge part if me is screaming out that the report should be fully confidential and on a need to know basis but then (perhaps the more nosy part of me) thinks that it is in the public interests to know if the report will alter the way justice is precived to be done, did OP surrender his right to medical confidentiality when he ended Reeva's life and made all aspects of her life and death open the the publics glare?

I am not obsessed by obscure branches of botany honestly, my phone keeps auto correcting psychological! I am not the best at spelling at the best of times and find spell checkers to actually cause more issues then the help, apologies, if I seem to go off on a botanical tangent you know what I really mean!

I think, with my sensible hat on, that the details of the report should be summarised for public consumption, maybe even to the effect of "nothing contributory found" or "evidence of xyz". I don't think we, the public, have a right or a justified means to know more although of course we would probably accommodate assimilating such information, ie we're nosy / curious

We know he killed Reeva, he still has rights though, and justice must be seen to be done, so hanging out all of his dirty laundry in public I don't feel is right, although some may argue he is fair game by virtue of his actions.

Just as Judge Masipa may summarise her final verdict and we may not be privy to the full detail, so here I think the same.

....and I need to stop going around muttering "as it pleases the court, m'lady"

I don't think the full report should be made public. I don't see that it is in the public interest, and I don't feel being a murder accused should mean you forfeit a right to medical confidentiality.

That's one of the things about televising the trial. I have really come round to it, and it is clear that the media don't print everything,but sometimes I feel a bit funny about hearing intimate details about life and death.

Anyway, I suspect the judge will summarise the report findings that are relevant to how the case proceeds, and nothing more.